github_list_pr_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only that it lists files, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or read-only guarantees. The inclusion of session_name hints at session usage but adds no context about its behavior or consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a structured arg list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation, the description covers the core purpose, and the presence of an output schema helps define return values. However, it omits details about how session_name is used, whether the file list includes statuses or metadata, and how this tool fits among other PR tools. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description repeats parameter names with tautological definitions ('owner: Repository owner') that add little beyond the schema titles. It provides a minimal hint that session_name is a GitHub session, but no constraints, defaults, or formatting details. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List files changed in a pull request.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_pr (which retrieves PR details) and github_list_pr_reviews (which lists reviews).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context. The only implied usage is from the verb 'List,' which is insufficient for complex decision-making among the many PR-related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.